The Psychological Dimension of Russian Foreign Policy: Putin and the Annexation of Crimea

Abstract

This article contributes to the growing scholarly literature endeavouring to explain Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. While much of the debate relies on the grand theories of International Relations such as realism, liberalism, or constructivism, this article approaches the puzzle from a psychological point of view and discusses several middle-range theories within this genre. These theories are examined sympathetically but critically, spelling out the added value they might have in elucidating Russian foreign policy, while also considering the methodological limitations in producing plausible explanations. Moreover, the article strives to overcome the traditional juxtaposition between the idea of rationality as a standard account of agency, and various psychological interpretations. Obvious methodological problems notwithstanding, the article concludes that cognitive and psychological featuressuch as the possibility of groupthink, assessment of prospects, operational codes and belief systems, personality characteristics, and emotionscan be applied to the Russian case and they can all explain Russia's higher willingness to take risks in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. In that way they can provide with partial explanations, and indeed are important elements of our understanding of Russian foreign policy in general and the Crimean case in particular.

Time pressures under international crises reconsidered: Integrating real and experimental time

“…Moreover, the annexation of Crimea led to an immense financial burden. For example, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Tatyana Nesterenko said in a later interview that she would have opposed this decision from a financial standpoint (Forsberg and Pursiainen, 2017: 227–228). Further, the result of Ukrainian elections thereafter swayed the country in a decidedly pro-European, anti-Russian direction because of the absence of Crimean and Donbas voters who had supported pro-Russian politicians.…”

“…When this decision was made, four colleagues were present at the meeting besides President Putin. However, the annexation of Crimea was rarely discussed, and the decision was made solely at Putin's discretion just before the end of the meeting (Forsberg and Pursiainen, 2017: 226). That is, in just a half-day meeting, and by a single leader's decision, the seeds of a long-term conflict were sown.…”

Public Policy Perspective on Group Decision‐Making Dynamics in Foreign Policy

“…For example, Dubé and Thiers () utilized the groupthink model to explain contradictory patterns related to integration processes in Latin America. Forsberg and Pursiainen () also utilize the groupthink dynamic as part of their explanation of Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Other scholars are engaged in the “groupthink or its opposite” debate.…”

“…Janis's case studies relating to groupthink decision‐making dynamics related to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the escalation of the war in Korea (1950), Bay of Pigs operation (1961), and the involvement of the U.S. in the Vietnam conflict under President Johnson focus on the decision stage. More recent examples of groupthink during this stage include the 2003 decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq (Mintz & Wayne, 2016a), the 2014 decision of the Obama administration to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria (Mintz & Wayne, 2016a), the 2014 decision by Russia to annex the Crimean Peninsula (Forsberg & Pursiainen, ), and the policy decisions related to integration processes in Latin America (Dubé & Thiers, ).…”

“…Most of the groupthink literature is centered on this stage of the policy cycle. Janis's case studies relating to groupthink decision-making dynamics related to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the escalation of the war in Korea (1950) (Mintz & Wayne, 2016a), the 2014 decision of the Obama administration to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria (Mintz & Wayne, 2016a), the 2014 decision by Russia to annex the Crimean Peninsula (Forsberg & Pursiainen, 2017), and the policy decisions related to integration processes in Latin America (Dub e & Thiers, 2017).…”